Iowa Results Signal Long Nominating Contests for Both Parties

A pair of presidential primary battles that just days ago seemed to have heavy favorites now present the prospect of protracted and expensive contests for both parties, as the candidates who survived the Iowa caucuses surged on Tuesday toward the New Hampshire primary to be held next week.

No candidate in either party appears to have an easy path to capture consecutive victories in the next two contests, in New Hampshire and South Carolina. No one left Iowa with a convincing, rival-crushing win.

And for the first time in recent history, insurgent candidates on both the left and the right are emerging from the caucuses with enough money to finance a strong offensive in the weeks ahead, across electoral terrain that will vary from famously flinty New Hampshire to conservative, middle-class upstate South Carolina to the post-recession suburbs of Las Vegas.

What remains for the surviving contenders — particularly on the Republican side — are convoluted and extended paths to their parties’ nominations. As of the end of December, the candidates and their allied “super PACs” had more than $288 million in cash on hand, according to Federal Election Commission reports filed through Sunday evening.

First they must persuade New Hampshire voters, many of whom have yet to settle on a candidate.

“In New Hampshire, I still think about half the voters are undecided or prepared to change their mind,” said John H. Sununu, the state’s former governor.

Image

Hillary Clinton at a campaign event at Nashua Community College in New Hampshire on Tuesday.CreditRichard Perry/The New York Times

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida must quickly consolidate voters uneasy about the credentials and electability of the two candidates who finished ahead of him in Iowa, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and the blustery businessman Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Rubio hurriedly declared a moral victory Monday night. And on Tuesday, after weeks of emphasizing his conservative credentials and sometimes aping the apocalyptic language of Mr. Trump, he struck a more upbeat tone in seeking to appeal to a very different electorate in New Hampshire, where independent voters are allowed to participate in either party’s primary.

“I think people realize on the Republican side that we cannot afford, this country cannot afford, to lose this election, and that I give the party the best chance not just to unify the conservative movement but to grow it,” Mr. Rubio said on the ABC program “Good Morning America.”

But to solidify his position as the consensus choice for establishment donors and conservative activists, Mr. Rubio must get past a thicket of center-right candidates who largely steered clear of Iowa’s evangelical-dominated caucuses and have instead focused time and money on the more middle-of-the-road voters in New Hampshire: Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Jeb Bush. Each, like Mr. Rubio, is backed by groups fielding millions of dollars worth of television advertising.

More money could surge into the race from other groups, as well. At a gathering in California last weekend, officials at the political network overseen by Charles G. and David H. Koch held preliminary discussions with donors about the possibility of a major intervention in the Republican primary against Mr. Trump, according to a participant in the conference. Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz both have significant support among the network’s allied donors.

And for all the talk of Mr. Rubio’s late surge in Iowa, it remains unclear in which of the next few primaries and caucuses on the calendar he could score an outright victory.

“Where does Rubio ever win?” said Dave Carney, a New Hampshire-based Republican strategist. “Answer that and I can give you a better feel for how long this takes.”

Mr. Trump leads in New Hampshire by more than 20 points in most credible polls, and by double digits in South Carolina. Yet after losing in Iowa, Mr. Trump — who spent more on giveaway hats and T-shirts last year than on identifying and targeting actual voters, according to campaign disclosures filed on Sunday — now faces the unsettling possibility that a winning campaign will require more than big rallies and social-media celebrity.

His Twitter account, dark after his defeat was announced Tuesday morning, was unusually subdued when Mr. Trump did re-emerge on social media Tuesday morning — at least for a while.

“The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly,” Mr. Trump posted, sounding both surprised and sulky. “Brought in record voters and got second-highest vote total in history!”

The state of play in the Democratic campaign is hardly more clear. Hillary Clinton, who was initially a heavy favorite over Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, fought him to a draw in Iowa after a fierce campaign, saved in part by a finely tuned get-out-the-vote effort that studied and plied Iowa voters for months.

She is widely considered to have the advantage in South Carolina, where black voters are a solid majority of the Democratic electorate, and in Nevada. But first she must contend with Mr. Sanders in New Hampshire — a state that neighbors Vermont, which Mr. Sanders has represented in Congress for decades — where he enjoys a strong lead.

Candidates in both parties are grappling with an unpredictable electorate, whose anger at Washington and at their declining economic fortunes drove record turnout in the Iowa Republican caucuses. But instead of propelling a single candidate to a clear victory, it split among several different candidates, leaving Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rubio and Mr. Trump in something resembling a three-way tie.

And money, often a long-term barrier for outsider candidates who eke out victories in Iowa, is no longer limited to candidates beloved by the well-heeled. Mr. Cruz, despised by the Republican Party’s donor establishment, emerges from Iowa the best-funded insurgent Republican in recent history, with almost $19 million in cash on hand at the end of December, the most recent figures available.

Similarly, while Mrs. Clinton has raised more money than any non-incumbent Democratic presidential candidate in history in an off-year, Mr. Sanders has managed to nearly keep pace entirely on the strength of small donors. More people have given to Mr. Sanders’s campaign so far — more than 1.3 million people, according to his campaign — than any other candidate at the same point in the campaign.

He has more than enough money to survive Clinton victories in South Carolina and New Hampshire. In January alone, his campaign announced this week, Mr. Sanders pulled in $20 million. And his campaign reported raising more than $1 million in the 90 minutes after his speech Monday night.

“It’s historic that we’re able to have this sort of grass-roots support for the campaign,” said Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman. “Virtually all of the people who have donated to us have not ‘maxed out,’ unlike those giving to Secretary Clinton. They can donate again and again.”